The secular liberalized state lives upon
presuppositions which it cannot guarantee

The convention "Religion and Freedom: the United States and
Europe", was held on the afternoon of 28 October [2008], at the Centre for
Political Orientation "Gaetano Rebecchini". We publish here substantial
extracts of the intervention of Cardinal Camillo Ruini, Vicar General
emeritus of the Diocese of Rome.

The theme of this convention is the relationship between religion and
freedom, and the different conceptions of this relationship in the
United States and in Europe. Before we begin to examine these
differences, it seems opportune to remind ourselves of some important
common elements, because it is only within these that the distinctions
will find meaning.

Regarding religion, the common and decisive element is that
fundamentally we are talking about the same religion, Christianity.
Regarding freedom there is at least one decisive element in common: both
in the United States and in Europe there has developed what we may call
a great "History of Freedom".

In Europe the demand for freedom, in order to affirm itself
historically, had to set itself against values and claims which impeded
its progress and seemed incompatible with it. Among these were, first of
all, the pre-existing ethical, judicial and political structures, as far
as these were understood to be valid prior to, and independently of, any
choice of ours, that ultimately led to the truth, to God himself, as the
recognised supreme guarantor of these structures.

Therefore, particularly in France, the Enlightenment and the
Revolution of 1789 assumed an aspect hostile to the Church and also
frequently closed to transcendence. The Church in its turn laboured and
delayed in distinguishing between anti-Christian motions, which it
obviously was obliged to oppose, and claims for social and political
freedom, which it could and should have received in a positive way. From
this arose, in Latin countries, between the end of the 18th and the
beginning of the 19th centuries, what the then Cardinal Ratzinger called
"a new schism", between Catholics and "laymen", where the very word
"lay" assumed a connotation of opposition to religion which it did not
previously carry.

Thus there came into being the secular state, which abandons and sets
aside the guarantee and the divine legitimization of the political
order, and reduces God to a private matter (cf. Marcello Pera
— Joseph Ratzinger, "Senza radici",
Milan, Mondadori, 2004).

Nothing of this sort happened in Protestantism, which from its
beginnings saw itself as a movement of emancipation, liberation and
purification, and thus had no difficulty in developing a relationship
with the Enlightenment, with the risk —
which has in part become reality —
of emptying the Christian truth from within and reducing it to a
cultural phenomenon rather than faith in the real sense of the word. In
any case, for concrete historical reasons, the churches born of the
Reformation in Europe were constituted as State churches, drawing close
in this respect to the Byzantine and also the Orthodox traditions,
where, unlike what happens in Catholic societies, the Empire and the
Church appear to be almost identified with one another, and the Emperor
is also head of the Church.

Nothing existed in 18th and 19th century Europe which could be
compared with the kind of relationship which developed in the United
States of America, and which indeed was a determining factor in the
formation of North American society. This society was in fact formed to
a large extent by groups of Protestants who had fled from the system of
State churches that prevailed in Europe, and who formed free communities
of believers.

American society is thus founded on free churches, for whom it is
essential to be not a State church, but based on a free union of people.
In this sense one can say that at the base of American society there is
a separation between Church and State, determined, or rather insisted
on, by, religion: therefore, very differently motivated and structured
from the "hostile" separation imposed by the French Revolution and by
the State systems that followed it....

Two great phenomena which have appeared on the world scene in the
last decades are the reawakening of religions and of their public role,
and the emergence of great ethical questions which clearly refer not
only to the personal and private but also to the public dimension. The
reason for this can only be found on the basis of the conception of man
to which they refer: in particular the fundamental question of whether
man is simply a being of nature, fruit of cosmic and biological
evolution, or whether he possesses a transcendental dimension, which
cannot be reduced to the physical universe.

At the same time a radical contestation of Christianity has gathered
new strength and is developing mainly on two fronts: one concerns
Christian morality, conceived, according to the line indicated by
Nietzsche, as mortifying man's natural spontaneity and as therefore
precluding the joy of living. The other concerns the Christian vision of
the world, considered already surpassed by the developments of science
and its "rationality" which would tend to confirm almost conclusively
the purely "natural" character of man, and would have found in evolution
an explanation of the universe complete in itself, which would preclude
any reasoned discussion on God....

Catholics today are making a notable contribution to keeping alive
that civil function of religion which characterizes the history of the
United States of America. At the same time however there are strong,
influential currents and tendencies in North America which are in favour
of a "French" model of laicism, substantially closed and hostile to any
public role for religion, and which today are actually aiming at
promoting a relativist and naturalist ethic, alien to Christian
humanism....

In Europe, opposite tendencies are at work, in some way related to
the American tradition, which are expressly known for greater efficacy
and topicality. Symptomatic of these tendencies is the position adopted
by the French President Sarkozy with regards to laicism. Italy
represents a special case in this picture, which might not constitute a
rearguard position, as is often said, but on the contrary he indicative
of developments destined to spread. In Italy, in fact, Catholics and the
Church are exercising a vigorous function of civil and public awareness
and, what is particularly interesting, they are not doing this alone,
but in substantial agreement with many lay people who are worried about
the possible loss of European humanism, and are consequently in favour
of the public role of Christianity.

The then Cardinal Ratzinger, in the book I have already mentioned,
furnished the historical and theological motivation behind this
synthesis, maintaining that "the distinction between Catholics and lay
people must be relativized, since laymen do not constitute a rigid
block, a kind of 'anti-confession' opposed to Catholicism, but are often
people who, while not feeling themselves capable of taking the step
towards ecclesiastical faith, with all that it entails, are nevertheless
passionate seekers of the truth, and suffer for the lack of truth
regarding man. Thus, these people take up the essential contents of that
culture which is born of faith, and with their diligence render it more
luminous than any faith taken for granted and accepted from habit rather
than as a result of knowledge gained by suffering.

As in the United States, so in Europe, in order to achieve an
efficacious exercise of the public role of Christianity, it is very
important that there be a loyal collaboration between the different
Christian churches and confessions.

Of particular significance and interest in this regard is the
attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church, which intends to construct a
fruitful relationship with the Catholic Church on these very themes.
Extending our attention to the international and world scene, the public
role of religion would seem to constitute the most favourable and most
urgent terrain for interreligious dialogue.

The public importance of religions, in particular Christianity, and
their efficacy in promoting dispositions for freedom, are never, in
fact, simply cultural, historical or sociological phenomena: they depend
above all on the religious quality and vitality of the community of
believers. On the one hand these communities must not be closed in on
themselves, but open, capable of weaving relationships, of meeting and
interpreting the requirements of the societies in which they live, in
order to be able to bring to those societies the values they hold.

On the other hand, this requires that religious communities be
intimately convinced of their own credo, and fascinated by, it,
so that they live it consistently with joy: this is the fundamental
condition for them to be able to animate the broader society, infusing
it with vital energy and a reason for living. I find particularly
relevant in this regard the riders proposed by Rémi
Brague, in the edition of "Aspenia" dedicated to religion and politics,
to the celebrated thesis of Böckenforde
according to which the secularized liberal State lives upon
presuppositions which it cannot guarantee.

In the current climate, which is characterized not only by a revival
of religions but also by a radical attack against Christianity, the
comparison between the "French model", according to which religion, and
Catholicism in particular, is an obstacle to freedom, and the "American
model", which on the other hand sees in Christianity a source and
stronghold of freedom, would require us to take into consideration the
great question of the truth and validity of Christianity....

Christianity is usually represented, and rightly so, as the religion
of love, and as the religion of the word (Logos) of reason and
truth. It is far less frequently described as the religion of freedom.
Yet already in the Old Testament God reveals himself as the Liberator of
the People of Israel, and in the New Testament we read the words of
Jesus, "If you live according to my teaching... you will know the truth,
and the truth will set you free" (Jn 8:31-32).

The relationship between God and man is, therefore, on both sides,
distinguished by freedom. God was completely free in his decision to
create the world, liberrimo consilio, as affirmed by the First
Vatican Council, while man can believe in God who reveals himself to
him, and entrust his life to him, only freely and willingly, as the
First Vatican Council and later the Second teach us.

So it is not far-fetched to describe the Christian faith as a
religion of freedom, even if in the course of history Christians have
not always been faithful to this original inspiration of their Creed. To
refuse to allow the cause of freedom and the cause of Christianity to be
separated is thus a real and essential imperative both for the present
and for the future.

Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
12 November 2008, page 11

L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by: